No, that is a sophistry. A proper map will draw a reasonable balance between compactness, adherence to county/city lines/ and "communities of interest," whatever that means, racial composition and series of other factors. Judging these standards as a whole, the Republicans created an entirely reasonable map. You can't dispute that fact, so you are forced to dumb-down the standard of reasonable districts to "communities of interest." That is how intellectually weak your case is.

Of course there are other factors involved in making a proper map than maintaining communities of interest, but the Republican map violates the communities of interest standard when there is no need to do so. It is simple to create a district that maintains the community of interest in western Minnesota without a trade-off in the other factors, as has been done in every round of redistricting since the 1960's. The only reason to split the community of interest is a partisan one.

Quote

Quote

This map splits them for purely partisan reasons. You can't deny that, and you haven't even tried to. That is the very definition of gerrymandering, pure and simple.

No, it is you whom has redefined "gerrymandering." Redistricting is the process of splitting some areas from the rest of the state.

Since there is a sophistry in your formulation, I am forced to quibble. Yes, I don't deny that those taking the decisions took the decisions that favored them. I do most strongly "deny" that "purely partisan reasons" motivated any particular decision. The map shows an amazing respect for county lines, and compactness. Every decision taken was clearly congruent with compactness and respect for county lines. If "partisan poltics" were the sole motivation, the GOP could have whipped up a 5-3 map with little difficulty. They would have to gerrymander to do it, but, it could be done.

This goes above and beyond a 5-3 map- it is a blatant attempt at 6-2, achieved by weakening Walz and Peterson while shoring up Paulsen and Cravaack. Granted, the Duluth-Moorhead district is a bit of a gamble but: 1.) The GOP has nothing to lose. 2.) Cravaack proved that a GOP victory in this type of district is possible, and 3.) If Peterson gets primaried, it can only help the GOP.

No, that is a sophistry. A proper map will draw a reasonable balance between compactness, adherence to county/city lines/ and "communities of interest," whatever that means, racial composition and series of other factors. Judging these standards as a whole, the Republicans created an entirely reasonable map. You can't dispute that fact, so you are forced to dumb-down the standard of reasonable districts to "communities of interest." That is how intellectually weak your case is.

Of course there are other factors involved in making a proper map than maintaining communities of interest, but the Republican map violates the communities of interest standard when there is no need to do so.

Of course, there was an absolute need to violate "communities of interest." In Northern Minnesota, the Iron range is a "community of interest." Every other county in Northern Minnesota has more in common with each other than with the Iron Range. Someone has to be paired with the Iron Range. The previous map paired folks to the South, while the current map pairs people to the West. The first pairing benefits Democrats, so you support it. The second pairing benefits Republicans, so the Republicans in the legislature preferred it.

Clearly, the Republicans drew a map more favorable to Republicans than the Democrats would had draw had they drawn the map. What you haven't produced is any evidence that the map is a "gerrymander."

Quote

[It is simple to create a district that maintains the community of interest in western Minnesota without a trade-off in the other factors, as has been done in every round of redistricting since the 1960's. The only reason to split the community of interest is a partisan one.

Quote

Quote

This map splits them for purely partisan reasons. You can't deny that, and you haven't even tried to. That is the very definition of gerrymandering, pure and simple.

No, it is you whom has redefined "gerrymandering." Redistricting is the process of splitting some areas from the rest of the state.

Well, the first definition for instance. M-W defines "gerrymandering" as, basically, packing your opponents, and cracking your supporters. Like every other definition in the dictionary, it is approximate. But, in any case, you have expanded that definition significantly with your prattle about "comunities of interest."

Quote

Quote

Since there is a sophistry in your formulation, I am forced to quibble. Yes, I don't deny that those taking the decisions took the decisions that favored them. I do most strongly "deny" that "purely partisan reasons" motivated any particular decision. The map shows an amazing respect for county lines, and compactness. Every decision taken was clearly congruent with compactness and respect for county lines. If "partisan poltics" were the sole motivation, the GOP could have whipped up a 5-3 map with little difficulty. They would have to gerrymander to do it, but, it could be done.

This goes above and beyond a 5-3 map- it is a blatant attempt at 6-2, achieved by weakening Walz and Peterson while shoring up Paulsen and Cravaack. Granted, the Duluth-Moorhead district is a bit of a gamble but: 1.) The GOP has nothing to lose. 2.) Cravaack proved that a GOP victory in this type of district is possible, and 3.) If Peterson gets primaried, it can only help the GOP.

Now, you are simply in fantasyland. Cravaak will run in the lower of the two Northern districts. The far Northern district is heavily Democratic. Peterson might not win a primary there, but, the Democratic nominee will be heavily favored.

The plan is basically, 1-1-1-2 in the metro area, and 0-1-1-0-1 in the non-metro districts. The Republicans are favored in three districts, the Second, the Sixth and the near-North district. The Democrats are heavily favored in three districts. There are two swing districts, one currently held by a Republican and one by a Democrat.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 12:32:09 am by BigSkyBob »

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

You can go back and forth forever on the "communities of interest" nonsense. The maps creators note that the new 7th has the "community of interest" of being agricultural areas, while the new eight is a "community of interest" more along the lines of tourism, timber, and a shared Canadian border.

From a press account:

"Anderson said the new 7th District would be a predominantly agricultural region. "The people in Cambridge have more in common with people in Willmar than with people in Grand Marais," she said.

Besides the Canadian border, she said, residents of the new 8th District share interests in timber and tourism. Also, she quipped, snow melts more slowly up north than in the center of the state."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

As a result, we have drawn a plan with three predominantly rural districts, recognizing three distinct rural areas in southern, western, and northeastern Minnesota. Under any five-three plan, having one district that crossed Minnesota from border to border was inevitable. Given the location of the metropolitan area in the central and eastern part of the state, we had three choices: (1) create a district extending from the North Dakota to Wisconsin borders along the northern border of the state; (2) create a district extending from Canada to Iowa along the western border of the state; or (3) create a district extending from South Dakota to Wisconsin along the southern border of the state. We chose the last option for a number of reasons.

First, the first congressional district contains the community of interest that naturally arises along a highway such as Interstate 90 and tends to run in an east-to-west direction in southern Minnesota. Marshall Hearing, supra, at 6, 18; Hearing Before Minn. S. Redistricting Working Group 21 (Sept. 13, 2001). Second, Minn. Const. art. IV, § 3 states that all districts must be composed of “convenient contiguous territory.” In part, “convenient” means that a district must be “‘[w]ithin easy reach; easily accessible.’” LaComb v. Growe, 541 F. Supp. 145, 150 (D. Minn. 1982) (quoting The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford University Press 1971)), aff’d sub nom. Orwoll v. LaComb, 456 U.S. 966 (1982). Of course, convenience is at times limited in Minnesota, as it is in other states, by the state’s shape, the availability of accessible roads in Greater Minnesota, and the need for rural districts to grow in area as their populations shrink. Minnesota’s western and northern borders may have roads that transverse them, but we have heard any number of objections to the inconvenience of using these roads and the difficulty a congressional representative would have in representing such districts. E.g., Marshall Hearing, supra, at 16; St. Cloud Hearing, supra, at 44, 53. Conversely, Interstate 90 makes a district along the state’s southern border the most convenient option.

Third, of the new first, seventh, and eighth congressional districts, only the eighth district has any population from counties that are part of the metropolitan statistical area. This population resides in Isanti and Chisago Counties, which include only 12% of the district’s population, are not part of the original seven-county metropolitan area, were part of the prior eighth district, and have common interests with counties to the west and north. This configuration of districts, then, best reflects the citizens of Minnesota living outside the metropolitan area.

Quote

Overall, this plan is balanced and fair and satisfies the criteria set forth in our order of October 29, 2001. It is among the lowest in number of split counties, minor civil divisions, and voting districts while achieving a zero population deviation. The districts are composed of convenient, contiguous territory, and are compact.# The plan preserves many of the state’s largest communities of interest, including Native American reservations, counties that have affinities with each other, and groups with common land use interests. The plan also recognizes that there are some natural divisions within the state; for example, northwestern Minnesota and the Red River Valley have interests separate from northeastern Minnesota’s interests in its forests, the Iron Range, and Lake Superior.

These are excerpts from the ruling in Zachmann vs. Kiffmeyer, which drew the current map.

2) I have consistently noted that neither county lines, compactness, nor communities are the end all and be all, just the principles that should be maximized. Inevitably, these principles will conflict. I will not allow myself to claim that the perfection of any particular one is the enemy of the greater good of maximizing all three.

This is exactly the point. With a northwestern and a northeastern district you get all three- respect for county lines, compactness, and preservation of communities of interest. With the Republican proposal you only get respect for county lines and compactness at the expense of preservation of communities of interest. The Republicans' willingness to throw communities of interest out the window when it is not necessary to do so, for no other reason than for partisan gain makes their map a gerrymander.

1) That isn't really true. For instance, today, there isn't two Northern districts. There is a Northeastern, Western, and Southern district. Before that, there was a Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern districts. Before that, there was two Eastern districts to the North and South, a South Central district, a Southern Western/West-Central district, and a North Western/North Central district.

2) In the previous restructurings, the Southern districts were restructured to be East-West rather than North-South. I don't see how you can produce a compelling reason to claim what was good for the South is unacceptable for the North.

Bottom line, two districts cover the Northern part of the state regardless of containing other portion. It's a partisan gerrymander, pure and simple, what is the point in arguing that it is not?

Logged

Creepy your fascination with me. Don't worry, this is just the penultimate.

You can go back and forth forever on the "communities of interest" nonsense. The maps creators note that the new 7th has the "community of interest" of being agricultural areas, while the new eight is a "community of interest" more along the lines of tourism, timber, and a shared Canadian border.

From a press account:

"Anderson said the new 7th District would be a predominantly agricultural region. "The people in Cambridge have more in common with people in Willmar than with people in Grand Marais," she said.

Besides the Canadian border, she said, residents of the new 8th District share interests in timber and tourism. Also, she quipped, snow melts more slowly up north than in the center of the state."

Are you kidding me? Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography.

Grand Marais

Red River Valley

These have more in common than Cambridge has with Grand Marais? Sorry. While Cambridge is pushing it... the current 8th could stretch a bit westward to include communities like Bemidji stretching down towards Park Rapids which are all forested lake regions.

The 7th, however, should include the farming belt of western MN from the Red River Valley down into the Minnesota Valley, just as it does now.

"They share in common the Canadian border"... who cares?

The vast majority of Minnesotans don't want 3 east-west mega districts... I'm sorry to say it... but Chippy is gonna have to go in 2012.

Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."-Paul Wellstone

2) I have consistently noted that neither county lines, compactness, nor communities are the end all and be all, just the principles that should be maximized. Inevitably, these principles will conflict. I will not allow myself to claim that the perfection of any particular one is the enemy of the greater good of maximizing all three.

This is exactly the point. With a northwestern and a northeastern district you get all three- respect for county lines, compactness, and preservation of communities of interest. With the Republican proposal you only get respect for county lines and compactness at the expense of preservation of communities of interest. The Republicans' willingness to throw communities of interest out the window when it is not necessary to do so, for no other reason than for partisan gain makes their map a gerrymander.

No, with Republican map you have all three as much as with a North-West split.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

You can go back and forth forever on the "communities of interest" nonsense. The maps creators note that the new 7th has the "community of interest" of being agricultural areas, while the new eight is a "community of interest" more along the lines of tourism, timber, and a shared Canadian border.

From a press account:

"Anderson said the new 7th District would be a predominantly agricultural region. "The people in Cambridge have more in common with people in Willmar than with people in Grand Marais," she said.

Besides the Canadian border, she said, residents of the new 8th District share interests in timber and tourism. Also, she quipped, snow melts more slowly up north than in the center of the state."

Are you kidding me? Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography.

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

There the obnoxiousness, and ignorance, of your comment has just blown up in your face. If you failed to recognize whom Anderson was, that reflects very poorly on you, doesn't it? Perhaps, you shouldn't comment on Minnesota politics without a scorecard?

That said, no matter how uninformed you are, I would never question your right to post in this, or any forum. We have this thing called the First Amendment. It has a purpose. Namely, it enshires the principle that every viewpoint has the right to participate in public debate so that public policy can be decided in the context of the Truth.

Quote

Grand Marais

Red River Valley

These have more in common than Cambridge has with Grand Marais? Sorry. While Cambridge is pushing it... the current 8th could stretch a bit westward to include communities like Bemidji stretching down towards Park Rapids which are all forested lake regions.

The 7th, however, should include the farming belt of western MN from the Red River Valley down into the Minnesota Valley, just as it does now.

"They share in common the Canadian border"... who cares?

The vast majority of Minnesotans don't want 3 east-west mega districts... I'm sorry to say it... but Chippy is gonna have to go in 2012.

Did you have actual poll numbers to back up this claim, or have you appointed yourself the royal "we" of Minnesota? Doesn't matter. Whether, or not, the Republican map is popular, and whether, or not, the Republican map is a gerrymander. I have no opinion of the popularity of the map in Minnesota. I will note that it simply is not a "gerrymander."

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

1) That isn't really true. For instance, today, there isn't two Northern districts. There is a Northeastern, Western, and Southern district. Before that, there was a Northeastern, Northwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern districts. Before that, there was two Eastern districts to the North and South, a South Central district, a Southern Western/West-Central district, and a North Western/North Central district.

2) In the previous restructurings, the Southern districts were restructured to be East-West rather than North-South. I don't see how you can produce a compelling reason to claim what was good for the South is unacceptable for the North.

Bottom line, two districts cover the Northern part of the state regardless of containing other portion.

That is true of the old map and new map. Why does that mean one is a "gerrymander," and the other is not?

Quote

's a partisan gerrymander, pure and simple, what is the point in arguing that it is not?

I dispute the factual basis of this assertion on your part.

The point of my position is maintain a respect for the Truth. There is an attempt here to redefine "gerrymandering" from what Gerry himself did, to any map passed by the majority party that wasn't incompetent["dummymander"]. In some cases majorities pass maps that are reasonable, and are among the more favorable to the majority than other reasonable maps, and at other times majorities pass unreasonable maps to favor themselves. Gerrymandering is the latter, not the former.

I have no doubt that the proposed Minnesota map is more favorable to the GOP than the current map. I understand why Democrats would oppose it, and/or wish that the governor veto it. But, that fact that they don't like the map doesn't grant them a moral entitlement to lie about the map. It simply isn't an example of gerrymandering.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 05:43:39 pm by BigSkyBob »

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Would you explain why we shouldn't prefer an elected politician who has stood for office, been elected, appointed by her peers to run the process, lives in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and has some undetermined proclivity to mendacity, and familiarity with the geography and cultures in Minnesota, over a some wantabe politician who hasn't been elected, lives in some county North of Minneapolis and has some undetermined tendency towards mendacity, and familiarity of the geography and culture of Minnesota?

We can go back and forth loading, and unloading smuggled premises. What even you can't defendwould be for some audience member in a redistricting hearing standing up and stating to Sarah Anderson, " Are you kidding me? Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography." I sure the members of the committee would look at him and say, "Who does that punk think he is?"

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 12:39:28 am by BigSkyBob »

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Would you explain why we shouldn't prefer an elected politician who has stood for office, been elected, appointed by her peers to run the process, lives in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and has some undetermined proclivity to mendacity, and familiarity with the geography and cultures in Minnesota, over a some wantabe politician who hasn't been elected, lives in some county North of Minneapolis and has some undetermined tendency towards mendacity, and familiarity of the geography and culture of Minnesota?

We can go back and forth loading, and unloading smuggled premises. What even you can't defendwould be for some audience member in a redistricting hearing standing up and stating to Senator Anderson, " Are you kidding me? Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography." I sure the members of the Senate would look at him and say, "Who does that punk think he is?"

Just keep on a' pushin' the bar higher and higher, Bob! Now you're just appealing to authority in the worst of ways.

Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."-Paul Wellstone

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a person whom was elected to Minnesota's legislature, was appointed by her peers-- whom where elected by a majority of the voters in a majority of the seats-- to create the map, or some wannabe punk with internet access?

Excuse me? Whom should we believe, a career politician who drew the map, who has a stake in the process, who lives in suburban Hennepin County, and would say whatever needs to be said to defend her work, or a normal person who actually lives in northern Minnesota and is intimately familiar with the geography and culture of that region? Oh wait, that career politician is a Republican, so obviously everything she says must be the gospel truth.

Would you explain why we shouldn't prefer an elected politician who has stood for office, been elected, appointed by her peers to run the process, lives in the suburbs of Minneapolis, and has some undetermined proclivity to mendacity, and familiarity with the geography and cultures in Minnesota, over a some wantabe politician who hasn't been elected, lives in some county North of Minneapolis and has some undetermined tendency towards mendacity, and familiarity of the geography and culture of Minnesota?

We can go back and forth loading, and unloading smuggled premises. What even you can't defendwould be for some audience member in a redistricting hearing standing up and stating to Senator Anderson, " Are you kidding me? Again, don't comment on this if you don't understand Minnesota geography." I sure the members of the Senate would look at him and say, "Who does that punk think he is?"

Just keep on a' pushin' the bar higher and higher, Bob! Now you're just appealing to authority in the worst of ways.

Oh please! I understand that certain folks believe that sarcasm is an acceptable alternative to rational debate, but, it isn't. The fact is that you embarrassed yourself by directing such a punkish comment in response to a quote from one of the writers of the map. Surely, you would consider it basic fairness for the person whose map you attacked to be granted the opportunity to explain the rationale behind the map.

At this point, it would behoove you to apologize for directing such a condescending, flippant and sarcastic remark towards Sarah Anderson's words. It certainly would be the well mannered thing for you to do. But, would it be political idiocy?

P.S. Apperently it was the royal "we," wasn't it?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 12:36:27 am by BigSkyBob »

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Someone didn't get the memo that the court is probably going to try to minimize changes from the existing map, which it itself drew. So that is the default option, which means neither party is going to give the other something that would appear likely to be more than the other party would get from the court. Any cross party deal is going to have to be pretty close to the anticipated default option when it comes to partisan balance. And there you have it.

The blue, green, purple, and yellow districts are all 59-39 Obama. The light purple district is 53-45 Obama. The teal district is 52-46 Obama. The grey district is 49-48 McCain. The red district is 57-41 McCain.

Back in January on this thread I speculated on a plan with minimal changes. This assumed that the plan would be drawn again by the court. Since the Gov vetoed the GOP plan, I've updated my earlier map to reflect the actual 2010 populations. Drawn at the VTD (precinct) level, this map has a range of 99 and a maximum deviation of 56.

Logged

Triple transit of Jupiter on January 24, 2015 with shadows of Europa, Callisto, and Io appearing from left to right. Image captured from Bate Papo Estelar/Astronomio ao Vivo (Brazil) live feed.

Hard to argue with those maps Mike. In short, they are as boring as hell!

I doubt it will happen. In the last map the Courts argued about the relevent merits of having an outstate district span either all of Southern Minnesota, all of Western Minnesota, or all of Northern Minnesota. The court claimed the facts pointed to the Southern span being the preferable partition.

To swap the South Western corner of Minnesota would reverse that decision.

Logged

The real scandal in Washington is not the bribery, corruption, or sex. It is how poorly we are governed.

Hard to argue with those maps Mike. In short, they are as boring as hell!

I doubt it will happen. In the last map the Courts argued about the relevent merits of having an outstate district span either all of Southern Minnesota, all of Western Minnesota, or all of Northern Minnesota. The court claimed the facts pointed to the Southern span being the preferable partition.

To swap the South Western corner of Minnesota would reverse that decision.

Population trends in MN-07 vis a vis the balance of the state, and where the county lines are, makes that a tougher sell now, I would think. The 1st to get to the SW corner of the state would have to be a thin as a pencil.

Population trends in MN-07 vis a vis the balance of the state, and where the county lines are, makes that a tougher sell now, I would think. The 1st to get to the SW corner of the state would have to be a thin as a pencil.

As thin as a pencil along a major interstate highway, though - which is why I suspect the court decided a shorter district along the I-90 corridor at the southern border is preferable to a longer district along the western border along no such interstate highway corridor unless you cross the river/border into the Dakotas.